‘real self-defense’
Proportional Response
The use of self-defense must also match the level of the threat in question. In other words, a person can only employ as much force as required to remove the threat. If the threat involves deadly force, the person defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract the threat. If, however, the threat involves only minor force and the person claiming self-defense uses force that could cause grievous bodily harm or death, the claim of self-defense will fail.
- See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html#sthash.x2ocadn2.dpuf
Does this mean that if a woman assaulted a man in a way that could permanently maim him such as this, then the man can reply in kind with a defense that could main her?
the assaulter must be rendered incapable. proportion must be measured. the only real surveyors are a jury. They must measure the proportionality and apply a generous fear multiple to off set the adrenaline factor of the assaulter.
What you’re posting applies to any situation imaginable where self-defense might become necessary. All those technicalities do not mean that a man must cede his right to self-defense if he is being attacked by a woman.
That’s the only point I have intended to make here.
Most ordinary citizens are in no position to instantly judge, assess the severity of a threat and react accordingly.
I know I can't.
If a gorilla who outweighs me 100% charges me, and all I have at hand is a shovel, he would be seriously injured, or worse.
Dogmatism is so cool in the abstract and, as often as not "the law is still a ass..." even in a black robe.
I'll take my chances with a jury of my peers. That IS still my Constitutional protection, no?